Comparisons: General

Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.

Also known as: comparative claims, identifiable comparisons, comparing products, price comparisons

The purpose of comparisons is usually to compare quality (“X is better than Y”), price (“X is cheaper than Y”), performance (“X goes faster than Y”) or market share (“best-selling on the market”). When making comparisons such as this, the competitor is often named in the ad, or it is possible for consumers to identify the competitor(s) being compared to.

In some cases, it is not possible to identify what product or service is the subject of the comparative claim. Some comparisons are with a marketer’s own product, others are with products or services that are in different sectors, or with which they do not compete. The Code contains rules for those comparative claims in which a competitor can be identified, and for those where a competitor cannot be identified.

Comparisons with identifiable competitors
Comparisons with unidentifiable competitors
Price comparisons
List of available guidance

Comparisons with identifiable competitors

Whether a competitor or its products are identifiable will depend on the ad, its claims, the audience and context, and nature of the market in which the advertiser operates. The ASA's interpretation of 'identifiable' has been broad in order to stay in line with the legislation underpinning the Code rules. Ads do not need to explicitly identify the competitor or competing product to be subject to the rules on comparisons with 'identifiable' competitors. If a consumer can identify at least one competitor or competing product, then the claim will be considered a comparison with an identifiable competitor(s), and rules 3.33 – 3.37 will apply.

For further information on the relevant rules and considerations for these types of comparisons, such as how to substantiate and verify them, see Comparisons: identifiable comparisons.

Marketers of aggressive identifiable comparisons also risk breaching Rule 3.42 (see Fussy Ltd - ASA | CAP). The Code instructs marketers who use comparisons with identifiable competitors or their products not to discredit or denigrate. For further information, see Denigration.

Comparisons with unidentifiable competitors

The rules relating to comparisons with unidentifiable competitors have fewer requirements. These types of comparisons must not mislead the consumer, and the elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage (rule 3.38). Objective claims must be supported by evidence (rule 3.7).

In 2014, the ASA ruled that a price comparison between an online retailer’s own products and similar high street products, was misleading. The products were selected for the comparison because they served the same function and were similar in terms of aesthetic. Given consumers would likely interpret the ad to mean the only difference in price was due to the fact the advertiser’s products came ‘direct from the makers’, the ASA expected to see evidence to show that the quality of the advertiser’s products was the same as the quality of the comparator products. The ad was deemed misleading in the absence of such evidence (Made.com Design Ltd, 16 April 2014).

Therefore, marketers should not omit from the ad any information that consumers are likely to need to form an opinion on the relative merits of the products being compared.

Price comparisons

The basis of price comparisons must always be made clear (rule 3.39). For example, if specific products or prices from specific retailers are being compared, the ad must make this clear.

By way of example, an ad for Aldi included the text ‘THE HOME OF BRITAIN’S CHEAPEST CHRISTMAS DINNER WHY GO ANYWHERE ELSE’. Further text explained that Which? had checked the price of twelve Christmas dinner components at seven UK supermarkets. However, as this text was so small, the ASA decided that many consumers would overlook it, and it was insufficiently prominent to counteract the impression that the comparison related to all British supermarkets (Aldi, 20 March 2024) See also Lidl Great Britain Ltd, 06 April 2022 and UK Insurance Ltd, 21 July 2021.

Given the need for clarity when making price comparisons under rule 3.39, it should also be clear if an advertiser is comparing their promotional price with a competitor’s normal price.

For instance, Sky claimed that broadband customers could save £750 by opting for Sky Connect’s Essential offer price rather than BT Business’ Essential standard price. Sky had stated that the comparison was between an offer price and a standard price, as is required. That said, BT’s offering was on promotion at the time, and was not available at the standard price. Consequently, the comparative saving claim in the ad was misleading, as new BT customers would not have achieved a saving of £750 had they opted for Sky’s product (Sky UK Ltd, 26 July 2023)

Price comparisons must also not mislead by falsely claiming a price advantage. Comparisons with RRP’s are likely to mislead if the RRP differs significantly from the price at which the product or service is generally sold (rule 3.40).

In March 2024, the claim ‘HALF PRICE…RRP £29.99 NOW ONLY £14.99’ was found to be misleading, as the advertiser had only ever sold the product for £14.99 (Vytaliving Ltd, 27 March 2024). The ASA also upheld a complaint related to a similar claim in 2023, as the marketer had been unable to provide evidence that the advertised saving claim against the RRP represented a genuine saving against the usual selling price (Swytch, 22 February 2023). See also Happy Beds, 14 December 2022.

For more detailed guidance and key points to bear in mind when making price comparisons, including how to compare promotional prices against non-promotional prices, see Promotional saving claims and Advertising Guidance on Retailers’ price comparisons.

Prices: RRP’s, Lowest price claims and price promises, and Comparisons: Basket of goods and may also be of use when making such claims.